Hello Loretta,
>I'm a bit confused about my action item. It sounds like the proposal is to
>changing the general technique to "Writing section titles that are
>descriptive" and turning the current techniques into prose that explain
>why they contribute to making a title descriptive. Have I got this right?
>I can't find any other examples of techniques that contain this kind of
>explanation. In fact, the only example I could find at all was John's
>writeup of SC 5.
>
Correct - we suggest combining the other proposed techniques as part of a
general technique called "Writing section titles that are descriptive."
Examples of general techniques:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-20050630/meaning-doc-lang-id.html#meaning-id-nat-lang>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2005Sep/0009.html>
>The examples (and specifically the counter examples) I wanted to add were
>addressed to the different items in the current list. I this going to be
>confusing?
I don't think it will be confusing. As with each of these general
techniques, you could move the examples there. But, I guess I have to see it.
>The survey didn't ask about the current advisory techniques. Do we want to
>keep all of them? Should any of them be combined in a similar way?
ah. oops. Here are my opinions:
# Writing section titles so users can get an overview of the content by
skimming them.
This seems related to the first two technique in sufficient - therefore,
this seems to be part of the [new] general technique.
# Putting the most important words at the beginning of the section heading.
# Starting section titles with key words that distinguish them from other
section titles and are unique.
These two seem to overlap. I would also include them in the [new] general
technique.
# Writing sections that only cover one specific idea.
This is not about section titles, but about sections. I don't see which
success criterion this would map to. I would remove it.
# Writing subsections of a section that provide more detailed explanation
of the section.
Again, this is not about section titles. This seems more like a technique
for L3SC5 - it seems similar to a summary of the content.
# Ordering sections at the same level of the hierarchy in order of importance.
Again, not about section titles but how to order the sections. I don't see
which success criterion this would map to. I would remove it.
>I've done some preliminary clean-up and editing on the wiki, in case it is
>helpful to see where I've gotten to.
>http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Proposed_Guide_to_3.1_L3_SC4
>
Thank you. Did you find the wiki easy to use? [I'm curious how well this
will work for us. Hoping it painlessly facilitates progress rather than
frustrates it.]
If you want more clarification, lemme know. I can give you a call and we
can discuss.
Best,
--wendy